The Gamers Arms

First off I have got more irritated by his increasingly right wing views espoused as part of his game reviews, but now he has jumped on the bash Gillette bandwagon with this rather rancid diatribe. Seeing this and the comments has made me decide I really don't need to spend any more time listening to him.

A female friend of mine on FB summed the whole thing up nicely for me, referencing the YouTube post of the Gillette ad:

"I am somewhat undecided on virtue signalling by big companies when it supports a greater good, but the comments on this YouTube video are enough to make it very clear just how bad the problem is. I like the advert. The reaction to it is pretty saddening."

What a cretin. It's weird that whenever Youtube or Twitch people express their views they nearly always seem to have terrible right wing views.

I think there's a valid discussion to be had over the separation of art and artist - I mean, just look at our (sadly deceased) HP Lovecraft reading group - and even now I still read Dilbert strips despite knowing Scott Adams is a pro-Trump, conspiracy theory spouting loon... but perhaps there reaches a point when the artist proactively pushes their distasteful views into every aspect of their output, making it impossible to ignore, that it's no longer possible.

This seems like one of those times.

Sly Boots wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:31 pm

I think there's a valid discussion to be had over the separation of art and artist

Without a doubt. Terrible people are capable of producing wonderful things. I'd never have a problem with someone who turned away from a piece of work or art because they couldn't reconcile that thing with its creator, but I'd equally never have a problem with someone who appreciates and enjoys something of quality that was created by a monster. I'm a fan of the concept of Death of the Author, which argues that a creative work should be considered independently of its creator's intent - i.e. the work should speak for itself.

Also I have no idea who Mack is.

Wrathbone wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:44 pm

Sly Boots wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:31 pm

I think there's a valid discussion to be had over the separation of art and artist

Without a doubt. Terrible people are capable of producing wonderful things. I'd never have a problem with someone who turned away from a piece of work or art because they couldn't reconcile that thing with its creator, but I'd equally never have a problem with someone who appreciates and enjoys something of quality that was created by a monster. I'm a fan of the concept of Death of the Author, which argues that a creative work should be considered independently of its creator's intent - i.e. the work should speak for itself.

Also I have no idea who Mack is.

He's the Worth a Buy guy, his videos often get posted when he reviews a new game just out. In his case, it's increasingly that his political views are bleeding into his analysis and informing his criticisms of games. I think he let one or two things slip a while back, got egged on by like-minded people in the comments and so has gradually made his views more and more transparent.

Fair enough. I don't mind people injecting their world views into videos, even if I strongly disagree with them, but when they start using their channels for soapboxes on unrelated subjects (i.e. social politics on a games channel, in this case) I lose interest.

I will never understand why so many people think "toxic masculinity" is identical to the phrase "masculinity is toxic".

I was going to write a long-ish post as a response to this video, but is there any point? Does anyone here find themselves agreeing with him?

Raid wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:46 pm

I will never understand why so many people think "toxic masculinity" is identical to the phrase "masculinity is toxic".

This. I found a really good opinion piece on the Guardian talking about the reaction to the Gillette ad, I didn't post it as I figured everyone here would basically be on board with it anyway, but regardless it's a good read:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ertisement

Raid wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:46 pm

I was going to write a long-ish post as a response to this video, but is there any point? Does anyone here find themselves agreeing with him?

Well clearly not me, and from everyone else's comments, that'd be a no.

What is interesting is how he twists everything - when he started ranting about it being "anti-white" I just shut down completely and started skipping through it. If the bile he was spewing is actually how he perceives the ad, he is a fucked up mess.

Fuck him, his baying band of morons who post in support of him, and all of his ilk. The sooner the world puts its' head back on the right way and flushes these turds back where they came from, the happier I will be. It just seems at the moment that all the progress that we have made in the last 40 years is being unmade by shouty fucking racists.

I guess the problem is that there's just no convincing people like him. Once someone has gotten to the point that they think there's a conspiracy against men, and that feminism is somehow anti-male, they may as well be a flat-Earther. Any counter argument falls on deaf ears. To Mack, it's Men versus Women, and because he can't see the way that women are treated (he's ridiculously dismissive throughout that video about it), he'll never understand that it's about equality because he already thinks things are equal.

Yes, despite everything that has happened recently to show it is not the case.

Prick.

That's an 11 minute rambling incoherent rant that basically says "I'm a Scottish guy who feels like my masculinity is threatened by an advert which, for a change, isn't overtly super macho". There's nothing about that advert that says "all men are rapists" and that seems to be the main thrust of his criticism.

Also, he pulls out that age old argument of "the women who get attention from groups of men in public always love it because it makes them feel good". That's exactly the kind of sweeping generalisation you make when you are a piece of shit.

The problem is that the only people who ever get a platform are those with super polarised views, so you get 'entertaining' prime time TV of a man-hating-woman arguing with a woman-hating-man. Our own media is literally rotting society.

In his defense he did have a legitimate point about the black guy stopping the white guy wanting to approach a pretty girl because....why exactly ? I mean his point about biology is correct. I mean if your dad did not chat up your mum you would not be here. Ask your dad. I find I am attracted to women that I find attractive because of biology and if I was not a happy family man I would approach and chat up women because...I am a heterosexual man. If I was stopped by a "mate" from just approaching a women to get to know her I would shout in his face "get the fuck out of my way". I still don't get it. Why would I stop a friend from chatting a girl he fancies. That scene is a disgrace.

After seeing the advert, I am not sure what Gillette were trying to say. Some men are pricks, so be different, buy our razors.



What the fuck has one thing got to do with the other ?

Mantis wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 16, 2019 7:39 pm

That's an 11 minute rambling incoherent rant that basically says "I'm a Scottish guy who feels like my masculinity is threatened by an advert which, for a change, isn't overtly super macho". There's nothing about that advert that says "all men are rapists" and that seems to be the main thrust of his criticism.

Also, he pulls out that age old argument of "the women who get attention from groups of men in public always love it because it makes them feel good". That's exactly the kind of sweeping generalisation you make when you are a piece of shit.

The problem is that the only people who ever get a platform are those with super polarised views, so you get 'entertaining' prime time TV of a man-hating-woman arguing with a woman-hating-man. Our own media is literally rotting society.

I think he's a Geordie rather than a scot, isn't he? The accents aren't a million miles apart, just sounds like it to me.

And made the mistake of looking through the video comments. Was hoping to see just one person calling him on it, but no. Absolute cesspool.

Achtung Englander wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:14 pm

After seeing the advert, I am not sure what Gillette were trying to say. Some men are pricks, so be different, buy our razors.

I think what they're saying is "We've always leaned on super macho alpha male tropes to advertise our razors, and in hindsight we probably weren't really helping the whole discussion, here's an advert that says we're going to think about stuff a bit more in future".

--

Regardless of how well they nailed the tone, I think Mack says far more, in that weird Northern accent -_-, with his pathetic response than this advert ever does.

The truth is that real men aren't intimidated by adverts like this because they're comfortable enough in their own image of their masculinity and also sensible enough to realise that women are people too and will act accordingly with that knowledge.

The "women love being oogled/whistled at in the street by men because of the attention they get" argument which Mack uses is only a shade above the "of course they were going to get raped when they dress in skirts like that, they were asking for it really" line. Fucked up and backwards thinking by someone who doesn't understand the idea of equality at all.